Is Baptism required for salvation?

CLAX1911 · Apr 21, 2015

EdwinWillers said:
If you think Jesus contradicted Himself, I would check your premises - one or more of them must be wrong.

" If you hear my words and believe in the one that sent me you will have eternal life"

If he says anything else that you must do to have eternal life, thus statement is contradictory. I don't believe hee did contradict himself. Many people do because they want their religion to be correct. Some Christian religions contradict Jesus because they want your ass in their pew. This is why I have a hard time with organized religion, they make up crap to manipulate people into depending upon their religion.

Radical · Apr 21, 2015

phattonez said:
Christ builds the Church, not the faithful.

And your response didn't really answer the question. We need to be perfect before we can enter, each of us personally.

The faithful are the Church. And I agree again, we need to be perfect before we enter paradise. Praise to the Savior for perfecting us!

EdwinWillers · Apr 21, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
EdwinWillers said:

Well, by that logic repentance and obedience aren't necessary either. Nothing in that verse about repentance or obedience, so they're not necessary.

Is that your premise - if all truth isn't contained in one verse of one's choice, then anything commanded, taught, or preached elsewhere cannot possibly be true?

Click to expand...

Yes that is my premise.
he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life,

I didn't see him say in those words, " unless you don't repent or obey.

I'm just going by what Jesus said.

CLAX1911 said:
" If you hear my words and believe in the one that sent me you will have eternal life"

If he says anything else that you must do to have eternal life, thus statement is contradictory. I don't believe hee did contradict himself. Many people do because they want their religion to be correct. Some Christian religions contradict Jesus because they want your ass in their pew. This is why I have a hard time with organized religion, they make up crap to manipulate people into depending upon their religion.

CLAX, you admit to picking and choosing a single verse on which to hang your salvation.
You further admit that in so doing all other verses are therefore null and void - false, or not true - while in the same breath claiming "I'm just going by what Jesus said."

Really? To top things off, you admit to believing that repentance is not required - in direct contradiction to those verses in the bible that says it is - most notably those verses where Jesus Himself says repentance is required:

"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Luke 13:4-6

I mean - Jesus even cites calling sinners to repentance as His PURPOSE - "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:32

How is it possible to believe one thing He says, but not believe other things He says - to even go so far as to deny their truth - yet still believe one's self a believer?

In fact, how is it you are not doing the very thing you find so distasteful in others - those who you accuse of doing all the above "because they want their religion to be correct" - that, "they make up crap to manipulate people into depending on their religion?"

I've said nothing about my religion - nor will I, because the only thing that's relevant is what the bible says - which btw is all I've done here - cite Scripture.

Who is it, really, who is "making stuff up" here?

Radical · Apr 21, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
" If you hear my words and believe in the one that sent me you will have eternal life"

If he says anything else that you must do to have eternal life, thus statement is contradictory. I don't believe hee did contradict himself. Many people do because they want their religion to be correct. Some Christian religions contradict Jesus because they want your ass in their pew. This is why I have a hard time with organized religion, they make up crap to manipulate people into depending upon their religion.

Two things:

1) It'd be easier to argue your point if you abandoned the inherency of scripture. For easy pickings, 1 Peter 3:21. Quite literally says "baptism now saves you". I would also argue that you haven't "[heard] his words" because Jesus' body is in heaven, therefore you haven't "[heard] his words and believed" because you're missing one of the two things the verse says is required. Finally, if Jesus told the disciples to go out to the nations teaching and baptizing, you probably should be taught and baptized by someone from an authoritative chain.

P.S. I'm not a Romanist.

2) If you hate organized religion because of manipulative crap, have you ever thought maybe you were manipulated by a non-religious organization to believe that crap? If I wanted less religious people, that's exactly what I would do. Maybe, just maybe, Jesus organized a group of 12, and then they went out and organized, and they went out and organized, and so on. We read this in Acts and the epistles as Churches are organized in each city. Maybe God likes the organization because that's the foundation of Christian community? Just maybe.

CLAX1911 · Apr 21, 2015

EdwinWillers said:
CLAX, you admit to picking and choosing a single verse on which to hang your salvation.

Just going by scripture.

You further admit that in so doing all other verses are therefore null and void - false, or not true - while in the same breath claiming "I'm just going by what Jesus said."

I don't recall saying the rest of the bible is null and void. But Jesus said if you hear his words and believe in his father you will live forever.

Since you like riding around straw men, catch this one. Are you calling Jesus a liar?

Really? To top things off, you admit to believing that repentance is not required - in direct contradiction to those verses in the bible that says it is - most notably those verses where Jesus Himself says repentance is required:

It either isn't based on repentance, or the bible contradicts itself. The verse I quoted says what it says.

"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Luke 13:4-6

That contradicts John 5:24 thus the bible cannot be the word of God.

I mean - Jesus even cites calling sinners to repentance as His PURPOSE - "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:32

Pointing out all the places where the bible contradicts itself doesn't make a good case for you.

How is it possible to believe one thing He says, but not believe other things He says - to even go so far as to deny their truth - yet still believe one's self a believer?

I don't. I take the bible with a grain of salt. It is created by man and thus subject to error. Church dogma is abject garbage because it is even more muddied.

In fact, how is it you are not doing the very thing you find so distasteful in others - those who you accuse of doing all the above "because they want their religion to be correct" - that, "they make up crap to manipulate people into depending on their religion?"

I only lulled you into pointing out contradictions in the bible.

I've said nothing about my religion - nor will I, because the only thing that's relevant is what the bible says - which btw is all I've done here - cite Scripture.

That contradicts itself.

Who is it, really, who is "making stuff up" here?

I just posted what the bible said. So, not me.

CLAX1911 · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
Two things:

1) It'd be easier to argue your point if you abandoned the inherency of scripture. For easy pickings, 1 Peter 3:21. Quite literally says "baptism now saves you". I would also argue that you haven't "[heard] his words" because Jesus' body is in heaven, therefore you haven't "[heard] his words and believed" because you're missing one of the two things the verse says is required. Finally, if Jesus told the disciples to go out to the nations teaching and baptizing, you probably should be taught and baptized by someone from an authoritative chain.

Just because I don't agree with you direct mean I haven't heard Jesus's words. I was baptized by Catholics is that good enough it do you disagree with them to a point where they conveniently aren't "authorities." As if anybody could be.

P.S. I'm not a Romanist.

What's That?

2) If you hate organized religion because of manipulative crap, have you ever thought maybe you were manipulated by a non-religious organization to believe that crap?

I recall saying I had a hard time with it. If you take that as me hating it, I'd say you are a bit sensitive. I have a hard time with it because if personal reasons, and I absolutely don't hate it. To me it should be kept in perspective and any that I have looked into don't really understand that. In That I have to agree to do things the "such and such" way. That is the part I have a hard time with. I don't get my information from any non religious organizations. I get must if it from talking to my father who it's Catholic, my friend who is a Lutheran, and my other friend who is Baptist. I think that perhaps all organized religions have some good points, it's the bad parts that make me apprehensive.

If I wanted less religious people, that's exactly what I would do. Maybe, just maybe, Jesus organized a group of 12, and then they went out and organized, and they went out and organized, and so on. We read this in Acts and the epistles as Churches are organized in each city. Maybe God likes the organization because that's the foundation of Christian community? Just maybe.

Perhaps I am simply too critical of organized religions, perhaps I simply take their dogma too seriously. But I do have some personal issues that make me hesitant. I feel as though I can't join something and find myself only half in it, or having to hide in the church from my life.

I don't know, that doesn't send like somebody who hates organized religion to me, but somebody who is trying to make a wise decision on whether to join one or not. Forgive me for being a bit scrupulous.

Radical · Apr 22, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
Just because I don't agree with you direct mean I haven't heard Jesus's words. I was baptized by Catholics is that good enough it do you disagree with them to a point where they conveniently aren't "authorities." As if anybody could be.

Catholics are authoritative enough for me. I'm Lutheran. I'm cool enough with Catholics.

CLAX1911 said:
What's That (a Romanist)?

It's my slightly flippant term for Catholics. The word "Catholic" literally means "universal", so the Romanists are claiming they are the one true church by calling themselves Roman Catholic. The creeds even say "the one catholic apostolic faith", so their terminology is traditional. I don't want to break from the terminology, so I also call myself part of the one true catholic apostolic faith. But I'm not Roman. So I gave them a new name.

CLAX1911 said:
I recall saying I had a hard time with it. If you take that as me hating it, I'd say you are a bit sensitive. I have a hard time with it because if personal reasons, and I absolutely don't hate it. To me it should be kept in perspective and any that I have looked into don't really understand that. In That I have to agree to do things the "such and such" way. That is the part I have a hard time with. I don't get my information from any non religious organizations. I get must if it from talking to my father who it's Catholic, my friend who is a Lutheran, and my other friend who is Baptist. I think that perhaps all organized religions have some good points, it's the bad parts that make me apprehensive.

People that say things like that are the exact people I want to go to church with. I feel much the same way, as do my friends in the church. Go to church and find people like me. Work to make that church better. More aggravating, but to me it completely worth it.

CLAX1911 said:
Perhaps I am simply too critical of organized religions, perhaps I simply take their dogma too seriously. But I do have some personal issues that make me hesitant. I feel as though I can't join something and find myself only half in it, or having to hide in the church from my life.

I don't know, that doesn't send like somebody who hates organized religion to me, but somebody who is trying to make a wise decision on whether to join one or not. Forgive me for being a bit scrupulous.

Ok, maybe I was harsh as well. The stuff you've said has given me a new attitude toward you. The objections against organized religion are not as extreme or blind as I thought. Instead, I encourage you to tell whatever church you're most interested in about said problems. Become active, respected, and change it for the better. Perhaps in the process you'll not only learn why church is as it is, but be able to alleviate people like us from the problems we see.

CLAX1911 · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
Catholics are authoritative enough for me. I'm Lutheran. I'm cool enough with Catholics.

It's my slightly flippant term for Catholics. The word "Catholic" literally means "universal", so the Romanists are claiming they are the one true church by calling themselves Roman Catholic. The creeds even say "the one catholic apostolic faith", so their terminology is traditional. I don't want to break from the terminology, so I also call myself part of the one true catholic apostolic faith. But I'm not Roman. So I gave them a new name.

From what I understand that is the difference between Catholic with a capital "C" and catholic with a lower case "C."

People that say things like that are the exact people I want to go to church with. I feel much the same way, as do my friends in the church. Go to church and find people like me. Work to make that church better. More aggravating, but to me it completely worth it.

I don't know that I'm spiritually ready for that.

Ok, maybe I was harsh as well. The stuff you've said has given me a new attitude toward you. The objections against organized religion are not as extreme or blind as I thought. Instead, I encourage you to tell whatever church you're most interested in about said problems. Become active, respected, and change it for the better. Perhaps in the process you'll not only learn why church is as it is, but be able to alleviate people like us from the problems we see.

I am glad you have changed your mind. My issues are deeply personal, and I don't know that I'm ready to talk about them with ministers. Whether I personally can go through that stuff. Right off the bat, I know I'll be rejected from at least 30% of churches.

Radical · Apr 22, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
My issues are deeply personal, and I don't know that I'm ready to talk about them with ministers. Whether I personally can go through that stuff. Right off the bat, I know I'll be rejected from at least 30% of churches.

Then don't talk to the ministers about your problems. Church isn't a trip to the psychologist. I only talk about my issues with people I trust. If you don't trust them well enough, then you don't have to confess everything on your mind. However, if you never go, you'll never trust them enough. You're stuck in a rut.

phattonez · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
The faithful are the Church.

I disagree with that. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). As such, it cannot err. We also know that individuals definitely can err, which is why St. Peter tells us that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). Thus, if the Church cannot err, but the faithful can err, then the faithful alone cannot be the Church. No, the Church is an institution, founded by Christ, owned by Christ, and built on Peter, to whom was given the keys to the kingdom.

And I agree again, we need to be perfect before we enter paradise. Praise to the Savior for perfecting us!

Are we perfect on Earth? For the vast majority that enter Heaven, have they reached perfection before they die?

CLAX1911 · Apr 22, 2015

Radical said:
Then don't talk to the ministers about your problems. Church isn't a trip to the psychologist. I only talk about my issues with people I trust. If you don't trust them well enough, then you don't have to confess everything on your mind. However, if you never go, you'll never trust them enough. You're stuck in a rut.

What is mystical about going to a building? I can talk to religious people without attending. In fact discussion is discouraged due to it interrupting the service or mass.

nota bene · Apr 22, 2015

I think that one’s relationship with God is intimate and private, particularly the “such and such” stuff. That's between Him and us. If you’re uncomfortable or apprehensive and are having a hard time with it, don’t be pressured or “guilted."

But I do want to say in response to your statement that 30% of churches would reject you that this means that 70% would not.

Radical · Apr 23, 2015

phattonez said:
I disagree with that. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). As such, it cannot err. We also know that individuals definitely can err, which is why St. Peter tells us that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). Thus, if the Church cannot err, but the faithful can err, then the faithful alone cannot be the Church. No, the Church is an institution, founded by Christ, owned by Christ, and built on Peter, to whom was given the keys to the kingdom.

Yes, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. And the Church errs. We are not perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. We are not perfect in any possible conception, including when teaching faith and morals as the visible head of the visible church. The Church errs all the time. Peter err'd all the time. Christ did not come to create an institution, Christ came to save his people. The Church is the faithful. The Church is an organization, but it is organized believers, not some magic teaching office. The Church is the bride of Christ, and the bride shares in his inheritance. An institution does not receive the inheritance, but the Church does, the faithful does.

Romanists abuse this principle by attempting to claim to be the one true Catholic Church. Your denomination is not as exclusive as you think.

phattonez said:
Are we perfect on Earth? For the vast majority that enter Heaven, have they reached perfection before they die?

No one is perfect on Earth except he who was incarnate of the Virgin Mary. And we do not become perfect until Resurrection day. Even if we assume Thomas Aquinas' teaching, we aren't yet perfect. Say that the soul becomes a pseudo-substance and is perfected through purgation in this world or purgatory, then say God lifts up that pseudo-substance such that it can receive the beatific vision. Even in this state, the thing is not perfect. First, a soul is not a person. We are the unity of body and soul, and if the unity is broken, we have lost personal identity. Second, if the soul is a human soul (and it is), it's is in an unnatural state without it's body. Regardless of the extra graces given by God, the soul is in a fractured existence and cannot be perfect.

Finally, even if objections 1 and 2 aren't enough, Aquinas is wrong from the get go. I am a sinner. If "I" am the sinner, "I" die, for the wages of sin is death. Am I my body? Yes. And so my body dies. Am I my soul? Yes. So my soul dies. When you die, you're dead. There is no knowledge, no reward, no thought, no work, and no wisdom in the grave. It is not until we are raised up from the grave that we may bask in a perfected existence with our Lord.

Radical · Apr 23, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
What is mystical about going to a building? I can talk to religious people without attending. In fact discussion is discouraged due to it interrupting the service or mass.

The building isn't required. The community is what is required. House churches have become very popular as of late. But with a traditional church setting, the entire community is, together, focused on worship. I find that kind of strict organization desirable. Prior to my worship service is a bible study which allows a lot more individual comments. After my worship service is a lunch where we talk about whatever pleases us in whatever fashion we'd like. However, if that doesn't appeal to you, I'd go check out some Pentecostal churches. They'll be totally different from what you're used to =)

phattonez · Apr 23, 2015

Radical said:
Yes, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. And the Church errs.

If the Church errs then how is it the pillar and bulwark of truth? Talk about a weak bulwark.

We are not perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. We are not perfect in any possible conception, including when teaching faith and morals as the visible head of the visible church. The Church errs all the time. Peter err'd all the time.

Peter personally erred, yes of course he did. But the Church as an institution does not err on matters of faith and morals. The pope does not err when teaching authoritatively on matters of faith and morals.

Christ did not come to create an institution, Christ came to save his people. The Church is the faithful. The Church is an organization, but it is organized believers, not some magic teaching office. The Church is the bride of Christ, and the bride shares in his inheritance. An institution does not receive the inheritance, but the Church does, the faithful does.

Yet Christ was very explicit about building this institution on Peter.

Romanists abuse this principle by attempting to claim to be the one true Catholic Church. Your denomination is not as exclusive as you think.

And a church that errs is a sign of a false church.

No one is perfect on Earth except he who was incarnate of the Virgin Mary. And we do not become perfect until Resurrection day. Even if we assume Thomas Aquinas' teaching, we aren't yet perfect. Say that the soul becomes a pseudo-substance and is perfected through purgation in this world or purgatory, then say God lifts up that pseudo-substance such that it can receive the beatific vision. Even in this state, the thing is not perfect. First, a soul is not a person. We are the unity of body and soul, and if the unity is broken, we have lost personal identity. Second, if the soul is a human soul (and it is), it's is in an unnatural state without it's body. Regardless of the extra graces given by God, the soul is in a fractured existence and cannot be perfect.

Finally, even if objections 1 and 2 aren't enough, Aquinas is wrong from the get go. I am a sinner. If "I" am the sinner, "I" die, for the wages of sin is death. Am I my body? Yes. And so my body dies. Am I my soul? Yes. So my soul dies. When you die, you're dead. There is no knowledge, no reward, no thought, no work, and no wisdom in the grave. It is not until we are raised up from the grave that we may bask in a perfected existence with our Lord.

You're misconstruing my argument. I never argued that anyone person is impeccable. All I said is that the Church as an institution when teaching faith and moral authoritatively cannot err. It cannot teach false doctrine. Otherwise, what good is a pillar and bulwark of truth if it constantly fails?

CLAX1911 · Apr 23, 2015

Radical said:
The building isn't required. The community is what is required. House churches have become very popular as of late. But with a traditional church setting, the entire community is, together, focused on worship. I find that kind of strict organization desirable.

More power to you. I've found it uncomfortable, unnerving, and down right hostile on occasion. I don't worship with anybody outside of my family, but I discuss God, Jesus, and the holy spirit with others on a regular basis.

Prior to my worship service is a bible study which allows a lot more individual comments. After my worship service is a lunch where we talk about whatever pleases us in whatever fashion we'd like. However, if that doesn't appeal to you, I'd go check out some Pentecostal churches. They'll be totally different from what you're used to =)

I have encounter hostility in Pentecostal churches and from Pentecostal people just in general. It has been a long time though. Things are changing.

jmotivator · Apr 23, 2015

Declan said:
In John 3:5, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Since it is agreed in mainstream Christian dogma that only another Christian can baptize someone, this creates a situation in which one is dependent on another person for their salvation, thereby making them your overlord in relation to your access to heaven. Seems like a pyramid scheme at best, but doesn't it contradict the Bible that the only way to God is through Jesus as the only way to Jesus and God is through another person who already has been Baptized before you? Your preacher or whoever dunks or sprinkles you is, in effect, a god in relation to your salvation. This would contradict the position that your faith is between you and god because you cannot have access to god under Christian dogma and the Bible unless another person performs a ritual upon you.

It's not a contradiction, it is just one verse being misinterpreted.

It isn't "mainstream dogma" that only another Christian can baptize someone. John the Baptist wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew and his baptism was a form of Jewish absolution.

Also most "mainstream dogma" allows for baptizing yourself through "Baptism of Desire".

Radical · Apr 24, 2015

phattonez said:
If the Church errs then how is it the pillar and bulwark of truth? Talk about a weak bulwark.

We are also children of God, yet we are sinners. It is the same explanation for both. I am a child of God because he has gifted me faith through grace, yet have not been purified of my sins. Equally, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth because it proclaims the mystery of faith, yet it has not been purified of sins. The atonement has been completed, and now we sinners, as the Church, proclaim the mystery of faith: "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." THAT is the pillar and bulwark of truth. And it's in both our masses.

phattonez said:
Peter personally erred, yes of course he did. But the Church as an institution does not err on matters of faith and morals. The pope does not err when teaching authoritatively on matters of faith and morals.

What arrogance! If the pope is a sinner, then all parts are subject to corruption, including teachings on faith and morals. I will say that you Romanists are often correct, but you are certainly not perfect. The magesterium has never corrected the animism of South America, the Philippines, and the like. Those Romanists aren't Trinitarian, they're henotheistic and overly superstitious. If your magesterium was truly so infalible, how could it, with it's perfect understanding, never address these abuses? And let's not even start on purgatory, Mary, and justification via works.

phattonez said:
Yet Christ was very explicit about building this institution on Peter.

Obviously not, ergo the Great Schism, ergo Protestant Reformation, ergo political usurpation of the Pope as the head of the Christian world. Plus, Peter was a Judaizer for a time! How can the pope be a heretic and perfect in faith and morals? Do you not remember when Paul had to publicly chastise Peter?

phattonez said:
And a church that errs is a sign of a false church.

Yes, and neither your church nor mine has declared anything separate to "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." They are the one and the same. Extra-Doctrinal differences are meaningless. To say otherwise is Gnosticism, therefore heretical.

phattonez said:
You're misconstruing my argument. I never argued that anyone person is impeccable. All I said is that the Church as an institution when teaching faith and moral authoritatively cannot err. It cannot teach false doctrine. Otherwise, what good is a pillar and bulwark of truth if it constantly fails?

Then are popes, when teaching faith and morals, impeccable? I argue no. No person is, any circumstance, impeccable until Christ comes again.

vesper · Apr 26, 2015

I have spent a lot of years studying Scripture. I have concluded that baptism is not required for salvation only faith. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
The act of baptism in Jewish traditions stemmed from the priests working in the Temple. They had to totally bathe to wash themselves of impurities in a ceremonial activity before serving in the Temple after all they were in the presence of the LORD. The baptismal was located just outside the Temple. Even the utensils used inside to complete the priest's duties were washed and submerge in the water. The Scribes had to bathe before copying G-d's word another ceremonial activity as an act of being clean before serving in such a manner. The Scribes having the task of writing G-d's words meant there could be no mistakes in a manuscript/scroll. If they made a mistake, they had to start over. No edits allowed.

When John the Baptist started baptizing in the Jordan, the people he was baptizing were Jews who were awaiting their King and Priest as prophesized. They understood the significance of baptism and preparing one's self to be in the presence of the LORD.

I think the Church has perverted this with thinking somehow baptism has some kind of saving grace when it is their Lord that provided that for them. Nothing wrong with christenings and dedications of babies to commit to raise them in the way they should go but it has no saving Grace. Only the Lord can provide that one and it requires faith on the part of the individual.

vesper · Apr 26, 2015

You know here is another after thought. If someone accepted the Lord in the desert and there was no water around to baptize them and the next day they died, is he doomed? Of course not. Is an innocent baby doomed because it was not baptized and was not capable of knowing right from wrong being held responsible for any sin and there was no priest/minister around to baptize them? Of course not. I know where all this thinking that people were doomed if not baptized including babies came from but I won't go into it here.

Radical · Apr 26, 2015

vesper said:
You know here is another after thought. If someone accepted the Lord in the desert and there was no water around to baptize them and the next day they died, is he doomed? Of course not. Is an innocent baby doomed because it was not baptized and was not capable of knowing right from wrong being held responsible for any sin and there was no priest/minister around to baptize them? Of course not. I know where all this thinking that people were doomed if not baptized including babies came from but I won't go into it here.

The phrase I like to use is that baptism is "required, but not necessary". Baptism is commanded in multiple spots. Also, if we wish to emulate Jesus, we should be baptized. Moreover, children were baptized since the beginning, so there is no reason to wait for a well thought-out choice either. Do it, and if you have a family, have them do it too.

Yet, even though "baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)", I don't believe God is restricted to only saving the baptized. Most obvious, the thief on the cross was not baptized, yet he would that day be with Jesus in paradise.

I think that faith naturally begets works. One of the first works would naturally be baptism.

vesper · Apr 27, 2015

Radical said:
The phrase I like to use is that baptism is "required, but not necessary". Baptism is commanded in multiple spots. Also, if we wish to emulate Jesus, we should be baptized. Moreover, children were baptized since the beginning, so there is no reason to wait for a well thought-out choice either. Do it, and if you have a family, have them do it too.

Yet, even though "baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)", I don't believe God is restricted to only saving the baptized. Most obvious, the thief on the cross was not baptized, yet he would that day be with Jesus in paradise.

I think that faith naturally begets works. One of the first works would naturally be baptism.

That was a good answer. I was christened as a baby and later on in life the immersion in water.

This ole world is getting awfully ugly. If it were not for my faith, some days I don't think I would bother to get out of bed.

nota bene · Apr 27, 2015

For you, Vesper:

Is Baptism required for salvation?

Supreme knower of all

Well-known member

"Statism - ideas so good they require coercion"

Well-known member

Supreme knower of all

Supreme knower of all

Well-known member

Supreme knower of all

Well-known member

Catholic

Supreme knower of all

Well-known member

Well-known member

Catholic

Supreme knower of all

Computer Gaming Nerd

Well-known member

Well-known member